--- 1/draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-07.txt 2020-07-08 09:13:12.770751848 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-08.txt 2020-07-08 09:13:12.794752453 -0700 @@ -1,43 +1,43 @@ ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. Internet-Draft L. Zhao -Updates: 6550, 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems -Intended status: Standards Track 17 April 2020 -Expires: 19 October 2020 +Updates: 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems +Intended status: Standards Track 8 July 2020 +Expires: 9 January 2021 - A RPL Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header - draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-07 + A RPL DODAG Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header + draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-08 Abstract This document updates RFC 8138 and RFC 6550 by defining a bit in the - RPL configuration option to indicate whether RFC 8138 compression is - used within the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior of RFC - 8138-capable nodes when the bit is set and reset. + RPL DODAG Configuration Option to indicate whether RFC 8138 + compression is used within the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior + of RFC 8138-capable nodes when the bit is set and reset. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 October 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 January 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights @@ -45,62 +45,60 @@ extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.3. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5.1. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5.2. Single RPL Instance Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5.3. Double RPL Instances Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.4. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5.1. Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.3. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction - The transition of a RPL [RFC6550] network to activate the compression - defined in [RFC8138] can only be done when all routers in the network - support it. Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as a router would - drop the compressed packets and black-hole its subDAG. In a mixed - case with both RFC8138-capable and non-capable nodes, the compression - may be turned on only if all the non-capable nodes act as Hosts and - their RPL parents handle the compression/decompression for them. + The packet compression technique defined in [RFC8138] can only be + activated in a RPL [RFC6550] network when all the nodes support it. + Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as leaf-only would fail to + communicate, and acting as a router it would drop the compressed + packets and black-hole a portion of the network. + The original idea was to use a flag day but that proved impractical + in a number of situations such as a large metering network that is + used in production and incurs financial losses when interrupted. + + This specification is designed for the scenario where a live network + is upgraded to support [RFC8138]. During the migration, the + compression should remain inactive, until all nodes are upgraded. This document complements [RFC8138] and dedicates a flag in the RPL - configuration option to indicate whether [RFC8138] compression should - be used within the RPL Instance. The setting of this new flag is - controlled by the Root and propagates as is in the whole network. - When the bit is not set, source nodes that support [RFC8138] should - refrain from using the compression unless the information is - superseded by configuration. + DODAG Configuration Option to indicate whether the [RFC8138] + compression should be used within the RPL DODAG. - With RPL, a leaf is an IPv6 Host, which implies that leaves do not - forward packets. This specification provides scenarios that force a - non-capable RPL-Aware Node (RAN) to become a leaf. The parent router - must know, e.g., by configuration, or leveraging "RPL Capabilities" - [CAPABILITIES], when a leaf does not support the compression defined - in [RFC8138]. This is implicitly the case for a RPL-Unaware Leaf - (RUL) but is not known for a RPL-Aware Leaf (RAL). The parent router - must uncompress the packets before delivering them to a non-capable - leaf and it must compress the traffic from the leaf. + The setting of this new flag is controlled by the Root and propagates + as is in the whole network as part of the normal RPL signaling. + + The idea is to use the flag to maintain the compression inactive + during the migration phase. When the migration is complete (e.g., as + known by network management and/or inventory), the flag is set and + the compression is globally activated in the whole DODAG. 2. Terminology 2.1. References The Terminology used in this document is consistent with and incorporates that described in "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs)" [RFC7102]. Other terms in use in LLNs are found in "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks" [RFC7228]. @@ -137,264 +135,220 @@ RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks OF: RPL Objective Function OCP: RPL Objective Code Point MOP: RPL Mode of Operation RPI: RPL Packet Information RAL: RPL-Aware Leaf RAN: RPL-Aware Node RUL: RPL-Unaware Leaf SRH: Source Routing Header -2.3. BCP 14 +2.3. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. -3. Updating RFC 6550 +3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option + + The DODAG Configuration Option is defined in Section 6.7.6 of + [RFC6550]. + + The RPL DODAG Configuration Option is typically placed in a DODAG + Information Object (DIO) message. The DIO message propagates down + the DODAG to form and then maintain its structure. The DODAG + Configuration Option is copied unmodified from parents to children. + + As shown in Figure 1, the DODAG Configuration Option was designed + with 4 bit positions reserved for future use as Flags. + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| Flags |A| ... | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + | ... | + + Figure 1: DODAG Configuration Option (Partial View) This specification defines a new flag "Enable RFC8138 Compression" - (T). The "T" flag is set to turn on the use of the compression of - RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within a RPL Instance. If a RPL - Instance has multiple Roots then they must be coordinated to use the - same setting. + (T). The "T" flag is set to turn-on the use of the compression of + RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within the DODAG. The new "T" flag is + encoded in one of the reserved bits in the RPL DODAG Configuration + Option. The suggested bit position of the "T" flag is indicated in + Section 6. - RPL defines a Configuration Option that is registered to IANA in - section 20.14. of [RFC6550]. The "T" flag is encoded in one of the - reserved control bits in the RPL Configuration Option. The bit - position of the "T" flag is indicated in Section 6. + /[RFC6550] states, [RFC6550] states, when referring to the DODAG + Configuration Option, that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT + modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration + option". Therefore, even a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as + set by the Root whether it supports this specification or not. So + when the "T" flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the + nodes in the DODAG. Section 6.3.1. of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in the DIO Base Object. The new "T" flag is defined only for MOP - value between 0 to 6. For a MOP value of 7 or above, the flag MAY - indicate something different and MUST NOT be interpreted as "Enable - RFC8138 Compression" unless the specification of the MOP indicates to - do so. + value between 0 to 6. 4. Updating RFC 8138 - A node that supports this specification MUST source packets in the - compressed form using [RFC8138] if and only if the "T" flag is set. - This behaviour can be overridden by the configuration of the node in - order to cope with intermediate implementations of the Root that - support [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the "T" + A node SHOULD source packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138] + if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behaviour can be overridden + by e.g., configuration or network management. Overriding may be + needed e.g., to cope with a legacy implementations of the Root that + supports [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the "T" flag. The decision of using [RFC8138] is made by the originator of the packet depending on its capabilities and its knowledge of the state of the "T" flag. A router that encapsulates a packet is the - originator of the resulting packet and decides whether to compress - the outer headers as indicated above. An external target - [USEofRPLinfo] is not expected to support [RFC8138]. An intermediate - router MUST forward the packet in the form that the source used, - either compressed or uncompressed, unless it is forwarding to an - external target or delivering to a leaf that is not known to support - [RFC8138], in which cases it MUST uncompress the packet. + originator of the resulting packet and is responsible to compress the + outer headers with [RFC8138], but it MUST leave the encapsulated + packet as is. + + An external target [USEofRPLinfo] is not expected to support + [RFC8138]. In most cases, packets from/to an external target are + tunneled back and forth between the RPL border router and the Root + regardless of the MOP used in the RPL DODAG. The inner packet is + typically not compressed with [RFC8138] so the 6LR just needs to + decapsulate the (compressed) outer header and forward the + (uncompressed) inner packet towards the external target. + + A router MUST uncompress a packet that is to be forwarded to an + external target. Otherwise, the router MUST forward the packet in + the form that the source used, either compressed or uncompressed. + + A RUL [UNAWARE-LEAVES] is both a leaf and an external target . A RUL + does not participate in RPL and depends on the parent router to + obtain connectivity. In the case of a RUL, forwarding towards an + external target actually means delivering the packet. 5. Transition Scenarios A node that supports [RFC8138] but not this specification can only be used in an homogeneous network. Enabling the [RFC8138] compression requires a "flag day"; all nodes must be upgraded, and then the network can be rebooted with the [RFC8138] compression turned on. - A node that supports this specification can work in a network with - [RFC8138] compression turned on or off with the "T" flag set - accordingly and in a network in transition from off to on or on to - off (see Section 5.1). - - A node that does not support [RFC8138] can interoperate with nodes - that do in a network with [RFC8138] compression turned off. If the - compression is turned on, the node cannot forward compressed packets - and therefore it cannot act as a router. It may remain connected to - that network as a leaf, generates uncompressed packets, and can - receive packets if they are delivered by the parent router in the - uncompressed form. Unless this is known by other means, the node - SHOULD join as a RUL as an indication that its parent router needs to - uncompress the packets before delivering. - - [RFC6550] states that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT - modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration - option". Therefore, even a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as - set by the Root whether it supports this specification or not. So - when the "T" flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the - nodes in the RPL Instance. - - Sections 8.5 and 9.2 of [RFC6550] also suggests that a RAN may only - attach to a DODAG as a leaf when it does not support the Mode of - Operation of a RPL Instance, the Objective Function (OF) as indicated - by the Objective Code Point (OCP) or some other parameters in the - configuration option. - - This specification reiterates that a RAN that is configured to - operate in a RPL Instance but does not support a value for a known - parameter that is mandatory for routing, such as the OCP, MUST NOT - operate as a router but MAY still join as a leaf. Note that a legacy - RAN will not recognize when a reserved field is used and will not - turn to a leaf when the "T" flag is set. - The intent for this specification is to perform a migration once and for all without the need for a flag day. In particular it is not the - intention to undo the setting of the "T" flag, and though it is - possible to roll back (see Section 5.4), adding nodes that do not - support [RFC8138] after a roll back may be problematic if the roll - back is not fully complete (see caveats in Section 5.2). - -5.1. Inconsistent State While Migrating - - When the "T" flag is turned on in the configuration option by the - Root, the information slowly percolates through the DODAG as the DIO - gets propagated. - - Some nodes will see the flag and start sourcing packets in the - compressed form while other nodes in the same RPL Instance are still - not aware of it. Conversely, in non-storing mode, the Root will - start using [RFC8138] with a Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) - that routes all the way to the parent router or to the leaf. - - To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL Instance in the - form in which it was generated, it is required that all the routers - support [RFC8138] at the time of the switch, and that all nodes that - do not support [RFC8138] only operate as leaves. - - Setting the "T" flag is ultimately the responsibility of the network - administrator. In a case of upgrading a network to turn the - compression on, the network SHOULD be operated with the "T" flag - reset until all targeted nodes are upgraded to support this - specification. Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 provide possible - transition scenarios where this can be enforced. - -5.2. Single RPL Instance Scenario - - In a Single RPL Instance Scenario, nodes that support [RFC8138] are - configured with a new OCP, that may use the same OF operation or a - variation of it, while nodes that do not support [RFC8138] are not, - but are configured to join an unknown OCP. - - The Root migrates to the new OCP before it sets the "T" flag, so that - nodes that do not support [RFC8138] are all attached as leaves when - the "T" flag is eventually set. - - The parent router - which supports [RFC8138] - compresses the packets - originated from the leaf and uncompresses the packets going to the - leaf. This may be done on the fly by the parent of a non-capable - RAL, or as part of the tunneling operation between the parent and the - Root, if the leaf behaves as a RUL. This is described in section 7, - 8, and 9 of [USEofRPLinfo]. - - Note that though tunneling from the Root to the parent is the generic - case for RULs, on paper it is possible for the Root to avoid it for - the traffic that it originates. The Root SHOULD always use tunneling - to the parent of a RUL, even for its own packets, unless it knows - that the leaf supports [RFC8138]. - - This scenario presents a number of caveats: - - * The method consumes an extra OCP. It also forces nodes that do - not support [RFC8138] to operate as RULs, unless there is a method - to let the parent router know that it must uncompress the packet - for this RAL. - - * If the RPL implementation of a node does not turn it to a leaf - when the OCP is changed to an unknown one, then the node may be - stalled. + intention to undo the setting of the "T" flag. Though it is possible + to roll back (see Section 5.3), adding nodes that do not support + [RFC8138] after a roll back may be problematic if the roll back did + not fully complete. - * If the only possible parents of a node are nodes that do not - support [RFC8138], then that node will loose all its parent at the - time of the migration and it will be stalled until a parent is - deployed with the new capability. +5.1. Coexistence -5.3. Double RPL Instances Scenario + A node that supports this specification can operate in a network with + the [RFC8138] compression turned on or off with the "T" flag set + accordingly and in a network in transition from off to on or on to + off (see Section 5.2). - An alternative to the Single RPL Instance Scenario is to deploy an - additional RPL Instance for the nodes that support [RFC8138]. + A node that does not support [RFC8138] can interoperate with nodes + that do in a network with [RFC8138] compression turned off. If the + compression is turned on, all the RPL-Aware Nodes are expected to be + able to handle compressed packets in the compressed form. A node + that cannot do so may remain connected to the network as a RUL, but + how the node is modified to turn into a RUL is out of scope. - The two RPL Instances operate independently as specified in - [RFC6550]. The preexisting RPL Instance does not use [RFC8138], - whereas the new RPL Instance does. This is signaled by the "T" flag - which is only set in the configuration option in DIO messages in the - new RPL Instance. +5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating - Nodes that support [RFC8138] participate in both Instances but favor - the new RPL Instance for the traffic that they source. By contrast, - nodes that only support the uncompressed format would either not be - configured for the new RPL Instance, or would be configured to join - it as leaves only. + When the "T" flag is turned on by the Root, the information slowly + percolates through the DODAG as the DIO gets propagated. Some nodes + will see the flag and start sourcing packets in the compressed form + while other nodes in the same RPL DODAG are still not aware of it. + Conversely, in non-storing mode, the Root will start using [RFC8138] + with a Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) that routes all the + way to the parent router or to the leaf. - This method eliminates the risks of nodes being stalled that are - described in Section 5.2 but requires implementations to support at - least two RPL Instances and demands management capabilities to - introduce new RPL Instances and deprecate old ones. + To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL DODAG in the form + in which it was generated, it is required that all the RPL nodes + support [RFC8138] at the time of the switch. - The 2 instances MUST be operated with the same security guarantees, - e.g., both "unsecured" with a lower layer security of a same - strength, both "preinstalled" or both "authenticated" security mode - (see section 3.2.3 of [RFC6550] for more details on those modes). - The latter mode could be use to enforce the segregation of updated - and non-updated nodes, by providing the keys for joining as routers - to the updated nodes only. + Setting the "T" flag is ultimately the responsibility of the Network + Administrator. The expectation is that the network management or + upgrading tools in place enable the Network Administrator to know + when all the nodes that may join a DODAG were migrated. In the case + of a RPL instance with multiple Roots, all nodes that participate to + the RPL Instance may potentially join any DODAG. The network MUST be + operated with the "T" flag reset until all nodes in the RPL Instance + are upgraded to support this specification. -5.4. Rolling Back +5.3. Rolling Back - After downgrading a network to turn the [RFC8138] compression off, - the administrator SHOULD make sure that all nodes have converged to - the "T" flag reset before allowing nodes that do not support the - compression in the network (see caveats in Section 5.2). + When turning [RFC8138] compression off in the network, the Network + Administrator MUST wait until all nodes have converged to the "T" + flag reset before allowing nodes that do not support the compression + in the network. It is RECOMMENDED to only deploy nodes that support [RFC8138] in a network where the compression is turned on. A node that does not - support [RFC8138] MUST only be used as a leaf. + support [RFC8138] MUST only be used as a RUL. 6. IANA Considerations - This specification updates the Registry for the "DODAG Configuration - Option Flags" that was created for [RFC6550] as follows: + IANA is requested to assign a new option flag from the Registry for + the "DODAG Configuration Option Flags" that was created for [RFC6550] + as follows: - +------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ + +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ | Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference | - +============+=================================+===========+ - | 2 | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | THIS RFC | - +------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ + +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ + | 2 (suggested) | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | THIS RFC | + +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ Table 1: New DODAG Configuration Option Flag + The DODAG Configuration Option Flags defined so far will be obsolete + for RPL Mode of Operation (MOP) above and including 7. + + IANA is requested to update the name of the Registry from "DODAG + Configuration Option Flags" to "DODAG Configuration Option Flags for + RPL MOP 0..6". + + When MOP values of 7 and more are defined, a new registry will be + needed. + 7. Security Considerations First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in the LLN that is RPL-aware can inject any RPL-based attack in the - network. A trust model MUST be put in place so that rogue nodes are - excluded from participating to the RPL and the 6LowpAN signaling, and - from the data packet exchange. This trust model could be at a - minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the Link-Layer - security. This is a generic RPL and 6LoWPAN requirement, see Req5.1 - in Appendix of [RFC8505]. + network. A trust model has to be put in place in an effort to + exclude rogue nodes from participating to the RPL and the 6LoWPAN + signaling, as well as from the data packet exchange. This trust + model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the + Link-Layer security. This is a generic RPL and 6LoWPAN requirement, + see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505]. - Setting the "T" flag before some routers are upgraded may cause a - loss of packets. The new bit is protected as the rest of the + Setting the "T" flag before all routers are upgraded may cause a loss + of packets. The new bit is protected as the rest of the configuration so this is just one of the many attacks that can happen if an attacker manages to inject a corrupted configuration. Setting and resetting the "T" flag may create inconsistencies in the network but as long as all nodes are upgraded to [RFC8138] support they will be able to forward both forms. The source is responsible for selecting whether the packet is compressed or not, and all routers must use the format that the source selected. So the result of an inconsistency is merely that both forms will be present in the network, at an additional cost of bandwidth for packets in the uncompressed form. 8. Acknowledgments - The authors wish to thank Dominique Barthel and Rahul Jadhav for - their in-depth reviews and constructive suggestions. + The authors wish to thank Alvaro Retana, Dominique Barthel and Rahul + Jadhav for their in-depth reviews and constructive suggestions. + + Also many thanks to Michael Richardson for being always helpful and + responsive when need comes. 9. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, @@ -404,64 +358,57 @@ Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, . [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 2014, . - [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for - Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, - . - - [USEofRPLinfo] - Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI - Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in- - IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in - Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-38, - 23 March 2020, . - - [UNAWARE-LEAVES] - Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves", - Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware- - leaves-14, 11 April 2020, . + [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, + "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network + (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, + April 2017, . 10. Informative References [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, . - [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, - "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network - (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, - April 2017, . + [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for + Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, + . [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, . - [CAPABILITIES] - Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., Richardson, M., and R. Sahoo, - "RPL Capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, - draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-02, 11 March 2020, - . + [UNAWARE-LEAVES] + Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves", + Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware- + leaves-18, 12 June 2020, . + + [USEofRPLinfo] + Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI + Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in- + IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in + Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40, + 25 June 2020, . Authors' Addresses Pascal Thubert (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc Building D 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis France